Brad Cooper: Appeal info

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
otto said:
I think that Boz screwed up in the recent Amanda Hayes prosecution. The prosecution forgot to ask for aggravating circumstances, so although she was convicted of second degree murder, the fact that the victim was chopped up, transported across state lines and fed to the alligators could not be used to increase her prison sentence. It was a big mistake that was pointed out by the Judge at the time of sentencing.
Click to expand...

I agree Otto, Boz and the state messed up bigtime. That charge would have added years and years to her sentence! Ugh.
 
otto said:
I think that Boz screwed up in the recent Amanda Hayes prosecution. The prosecution forgot to ask for aggravating circumstances, so although she was convicted of second degree murder, the fact that the victim was chopped up, transported across state lines and fed to the alligators could not be used to increase her prison sentence. It was a big mistake that was pointed out by the Judge at the time of sentencing.
Click to expand...

Texas may be getting their day with AH
 
macd said:
No it isn't. Kurtz did a super job making you, and others, believe that, but it is not so.

There is not one-cookie-per-search. There is one-cookie-per-google-maps. If there is no cookie, than google maps has never ever been used on that computer. (or someone securely deleted the cookie).
Click to expand...

I am citing testimony from the State's witnesses, macd. They have the ability to see deleted cookies so for you to say that the FBI didn't find it because Brad went out of his way to "hide" it in some secret place, that is just not logical at all. If he's going to all this trouble to hide a cookie, why not simply use a different computer?! Cisco has hundreds of computers. Johnson didn't respond with "No, I didn't find a deleted cookie but it may be in some super duper secret place."

He went to all these lengths to hide a cookie but left the incriminating tif files. Why?

No, this was not the first ever Google map search on that computer.
 
sunshine05 said:
I am citing testimony from the State's witnesses, macd. They have the ability to see deleted cookies so for you to say that the FBI didn't find it because Brad went out of his way to "hide" it in some secret place, that is just not logical at all. If he's going to all this trouble to hide a cookie, why not simply use a different computer?! Cisco has hundreds of computers. Johnson didn't respond with "No, I didn't find a deleted cookie but it may be in some super duper secret place."

He went to all these lengths to hide a cookie but left the incriminating tif files. Why?

No, this was not the first ever Google map search on that computer.
Click to expand...

I think the state of the computer shows that Brad thought he could cover his tracks, that he tried to cover his tracks, but ultimately he failed.
 
Here's what I don't understand and maybe macd or someone familiar with browser technology could explain --

If someone planted google search files on a computer, or otherwise manipulated existing search files, isn't the whole point to make the search look like it was valid? How does deleting or in some way removing a google cookie help make the search look valid (or more valid) than it would if the cookie had been left?

If a cookie was deleted by someone who was trying to "frame Brad," then why delete the cookie? If they could plant files and/or change file data couldn't they also plant a cookie? Why delete the very thing that can point to the search if the point is for an examiner to find the search and find files associated with the search?

To me deleting a cookie implies something (be it man or machine) is trying to hide or remove information--in this case evidence of a google search.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what some framer would want?
 
Madeleine74 said:
You're posting about the Amanda Hayes case in the Brad Cooper trial threads. Were you aware there are dedicated threads for both the Grant Hayes and Amanda Hayes trials? Also, I'm not sure if Boz was the lead prosecutor on that trial. If not, it wasn't his screwup, although he didn't catch that omission either (assuming it was a mistake), until the judge pointed it out.
Click to expand...

My comment relates to the prosecutor.
 
Still hoping for a tech explanation of why deleting a google search cookie would be a good strategy for a "framer" who wants that very search to be found and look valid.....

anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?
 
A good reason for a person to delete a google cookie if they are framing someone else -- because google cookies can be subpoenaed, and when they are, it will show that the search did not actually happen at that precise time or from that location. So, delete the cookie so that it can't be traced. In this case, the Prosecution waited past the subpoena deadline to provide cookie or computer information to the Defense, so no google cookies were subpoenaed in this case at all. All efforts that could have been taken to validate the google search efforts were lost when they did not turn over that information.
 
macd said:
I think the state of the computer shows that Brad thought he could cover his tracks, that he tried to cover his tracks, but ultimately he failed.
Click to expand...

Not at all. There was no sign of "covering tracks" whatsoever. There were many cookies predating and postdating July 11th.

There is not one logical explanation for one to go in and delete a cookie but leave the temporary internet files there. Not one. And in fact it's impossible in this case because they looked at the deleted files and there wasn't a deleted cookie - yes, it would have still been detected if there had been.

I guess I could borrow from the Young jurors and say It's the "absence of evidence" that incriminates the framer.

This is a clear sign of planted files minus the normally associated cookie. Why? Because the cookie could be traced to the person who did the search. I don't see how anyone can misunderstand the significance of the absent (not deleted) cookie.
 
Madeleine74 said:
Still hoping for a tech explanation of why deleting a google search cookie would be a good strategy for a "framer" who wants that very search to be found and look valid.....

anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?
Click to expand...

Who is Bueller?
 
Still thinking of Nancy's girls......haoping and praying the man who strangled their Mommy to death never, ever sees them again. They are exactly where Nancy would want them. God bless you Krista!! :) :)

Please God don't let BC disupt their live EVER again!!

RIP Nancy.....always in my thoughts and prayers. You and Michelle will get the justice you BOTH deserve. BC and JY are murdering SOBs!!
 
BC strangled his wife, hid her body, "cleaned up", lied, lied, and lied some more.

He will get his this time!!!! You killed her BC...you and ONLY you!!!
 
Not sure what Ferris Bueller has to do with Nancy Cooper being murdered, but whatever.
 
sunshine05 said:
Not at all. There was no sign of "covering tracks" whatsoever. There were many cookies predating and postdating July 11th.

There is not one logical explanation for one to go in and delete a cookie but leave the temporary internet files there. Not one. And in fact it's impossible in this case because they looked at the deleted files and there wasn't a deleted cookie - yes, it would have still been detected if there had been.

I guess I could borrow from the Young jurors and say It's the "absence of evidence" that incriminates the framer.

This is a clear sign of planted files minus the normally associated cookie. Why? Because the cookie could be traced to the person who did the search. I don't see how anyone can misunderstand the significance of the absent (not deleted) cookie.
Click to expand...

"Absence of evidence", is that what the Jurors said?
 
tarheellvr said:
Still thinking of Nancy's girls......haoping and praying the man who strangled their Mommy to death never, ever sees them again. They are exactly where Nancy would want them. God bless you Krista!! :) :)

Please God don't let BC disupt their live EVER again!!

RIP Nancy.....always in my thoughts and prayers. You and Michelle will get the justice you BOTH deserve. BC and JY are murdering SOBs!!
Click to expand...

I think about the girls too and how they are missing out on being raised by their father. I want justice for Nancy too. Convicting the wrong person and allowing a killer to walk free is not justice for this family.

Many here said that Brad and Jason would never win their appeals and look where we are now. Both of them granted new trials due to very unfair trials. They are now innocent until proven guilty again. If the State had had enough evidence to convict them lawfully, they wouldn't have resorted to the unfair tactics. Both cases were precedent setting - Cooper's with the national security preventing full discovery access by the Defense and the improper ruling over the forensic title of the Defense expert. Young case - admission of civil rulings ....never has either been done before because they go against statutes that have been in place for a long time. It shows how desperate they were to win these cases, willing to cross that line and here we are three years later and still waiting for things to be made right. I wish more people were bothered by the lawlessness that was witnessed in these cases. This is the type of thing that one expects to see in a third world country.
 
Agent Johnson called by the Defense --- questioned about the missing cookie associated with the incriminating Google map search. I'm going to be writing a detailed article specific to cookies and this case and why this is so important as it relates to tampering.

cookie7.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 148 more.
Total: 2,712 (members: 149, guests: 2,563)

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
2,563
Total visitors
2,712
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,792
Messages
18,113,692
Members
230,990
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top